The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, December 21, 2012

Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)

It is now two years since the rude jolt that sent several Arab leaders hurtling to the hard ground of the reality that they themselves have had no small part in creating. Dozens of years of dictatorship, criminal neglect, political corruption, cronyism and nepotism, have turned the Arab world into a barrel of extremely explosive gun powder . The Arab satellite media, especially Al Jazeera, the jihad channel of the Muslim Brotherhood, has been flooding the area with high octane gas fumes by broadcasting unrestrained propaganda against the Arab dictators – “the rulers ofthe 99percentbelow zero” in their words – led by Mubarak, Asad, Qadhaffi and Saddam Hussein.

This channel served as the pyromaniac who carried the burning torch from one arena to another, from Tunisia to Egypt, from Libya to Yemen, from Bahrain to Syria as its spokesmen, headed by the Emir of Qatar asked: “Who will be next?” The masses, addicted to this channel since the end of 1996, did what was expected of them by the people of the channel, chiefly the Emir of Qatar, Hamed bin Khalifa al-Thani, who built up tremendous power for himself by means of the reckless satellite channel, which exerts control over the hungry, neglected, oppressed and wretched masses.

It is not within the scope of this article to give a detailed review of the last two years in each one of the states involved in the upheaval, but we shall mark the end point to which each of them arrived.

Tunisia – The Opening Shot

In December 2010, in the peripheral town of Sidi Bou Said, a young, unemployed man by the name of Muhammad bou Azizi immolated himself, and the flames ignited the fumes wafting around the Arab barrel of gun powder . The demonstrations caused president Zine al-Abadine bin Ali to flee the country, but not before he and his wife stole a ton and a half of gold from the central bank. In elections that were held in 2011, the Islamic party, which had been forbidden until then, won first place. However, since it did not win a majority of seats in the parliament, it had to form a coalition with a secular party headed by Munsaf al-Marzouki, a liberal intellectual, who fought for years for human rights in Tunisia and lived in exile until 2011 because of his criticism of President bin Ali. The leader of the Islamic stream, Rashid al-Ghanoushi, offered the secular al-Marzouki to serve as president of Tunisia, which made it easier for the secular sectors of society to accept the legitimacy of the new regime, even though the Islamic party was predominant. From this point of view, the change in Tunisia is a source of inspiration, especially in light of the fact that it is the first experiment to create a democratic political system after long years of the autocratic rule of presidents Bourugiba and bin Ali. The hopes of the citizens of Tunisia skyrocketed.

But the relative stability in the political arena did not bring about meaningful change in the life of the individual, especially in his economic situation. There are many reasons for this: the corrupt governmental system, large parts of which remain from the days of bin Ali and continued to conduct itself according to the practice “A friend brings a friend”; the infrastructures are still in the same miserable state that they were in during bin Ali’s time; The investors do not rush to invest in initiatives in Tunisia that might create sources of livelihood; the economic crisis in Europe prevents significant growthof production. The Tunisian citizen now understands that his political hopes, which were fulfilled well, did not translate into a significant improvement in his economic situation.

Another issue that did not undergo a meaningful change is the social stratification in Tunisia. The Tunisian population is polarized between the urban elite and the marginal layers that live in the agricultural suburbs and the desert, the greater part of whom live within a tribal framework. The city is much more open, secular and liberal than the periphery, which remain closed, religious and traditional. The Ethnic issue also has a negative influence on the sense of unity in Tunisia, because in addition to the Arabs who live there, there are also Berbers and Africans, who suffer from a negative image. This situation exists regardless of the regime, and the change resulting from the removal of bin Ali has had no influence on the social stratification in Tunisia.

As a result of the economic difficulties, Tunisia has witnessed a series of protest demonstrations against the regime in recent months, mainly in the periphery. Things have even reached the point where President al-Mourzuki, who came last week to the town of Sidi Bou Said – the focal point from where the upheaval that eventually encompassed the Arab world began – in order to participate in a ceremony in memory of Muhammad Bou Azizi, was forced to retreat from the place because of the rocks that were rained down upon him, and because of the cries and curses that were hurled at him. He wanted democracy and got it right in his face, and the people wanted democracy but have now understood that it is not a money-printing machine.

There is not an optimistic forecast for Tunisia: the economic situation in the world in general and in Europe in particular is not expected to improve dramatically in the near future; the administration will not change its imbedded habits of corruption, and social stratification will continue to have a negative influence on opportunities for the country, especially for the youth who live in the social and economic periphery. The resentment that results from these flaws has a negative influence on political stability, and the lack of stability may have a negative influence on investments, and consequently on the economic situation as well.

For the Tunisian masses who support the Islamic movement it has become clear that the movement has no magic wand that can solve the country’s problems, and it is not clear if there is anything at all to the slogan “Islam is the Solution”, which was the watchword of the party.

Egypt – A Complicated Tangle

On the 25th of January, it will be two years since the beginning of the upheaval in this country. There areare many significant accomplishments of the revolution: Mubarak, the corrupt dictator sits in the defendant’s cage, the heads of his government have been removed – some of them to prison – in disgrace, the Muslim Brotherhood has won the office of presidency and half of the seats of parliament, the military “has been put in its place” by an Islamic president, and even the president of the United States receives the regime of the Muslim Brotherhood as a fait accompli.

However, the situation in Egypt is complicated and complex on a number of levels:the free youth of the revolution, the liberals, the secular, the educated and the unemployed, who with their bodies removed Mubarak and paid for the demonstrations against him in blood, have discovered that their revolution has been stolen from them. In their worst nightmares they did not foresee that the civil revolution would become an Islamic revolution. Women in casual shirts and jeans who demonstrated two years ago in Tahrir (“liberation”) Square did not expect that as a result of the revolution, representatives of the Salafist party, those who believe that “the best hijab for a woman is her house”, would occupy a quarter of the seats of parliament.

But the political disappointments – as great as they are – are much, much less disheartening than the economic ones. In Egypt too, most of the administration of the previous regime has remained in place, and it is filled with layers of hidden unemployment, excess employees, cumbersome bureaucracy, nepotism, and the chance that it will bring the country to a state of development and prosperity are no greater than in the days of Mubarak.

Tourism, which, in the days of Mubarak granted livelihood to millions of Egyptians, has disappeared and with it, this important source of livelihood for many Egyptians has also disappeared. These people today live far below the line of poverty, which, in Egypt, is quite low to begin with. Foreign investors have refrained for the past two years from investing in Egypt, because the security situation is not stable and it is not clear to them if they will see any profit at all from their investment, which might go down the drain. The lack of investments has a negative influence on the creation of new sources of employment for the masses of Egyptians who enterthe work force every year, to establish a family and to support it. The many unemployed university graduates who come up against the severe employment reality, cause an explosive social situation; the average age ofmarriage is rising and has passed the 30 mark, establishing a family (“opening a home”) has become an impossible economic task for most of the youth and this is enough to launch them into the streets to let off the steam that has accumulated against the symbols of the regime, institutions of the state and police stations.

The constitution, which is being voted upon these days, grants many authorities to the president at the expense of the other institutions, mainly the parliament, and it starts to smell like a dictatorship. Many – even among the religious sectors of society – ask if this is what the Muslim Brotherhood has come to power for. The activity of parliament, which was elected about a year ago, was frozen by an edict of the court, and it doesn’t seem that the president is rushing to renew the activity of the parliament. He does not want to be called upon to answer embarrassing questions that might be addressed to him from parliament, which has authoritybecause it was chosen by democratic and fair elections. He is not interested in a parliament that will pass budgetary laws that are not consistent with his opinion, and in general – the combination of a president with a clear cultural, social and political agenda and a parliament which is polarized within by various contradictory trends, is not a prescription for political stability, but rather for a dead end, with the two sides stuck in an embrace where each side sticks a knife into the other.

Two years after the upheaval in Egypt and this country seems like a rickety wagon with several formidable and powerful horses pulling it at full speed, but in different directions: the president, the constitutional committee, the members of parliament, the military, the government, which is always temporary, the secular street, the religious street, the Salafis and supporters of Mubarak. The forecast for the future is not rosy, because the constitutional-governmental knot has a bad influence on the economy, which is collapsing in the first place, and the struggle for the cultural image of Egypt slips too many times into violence that causes more violence from the police, which raises the ire of the public to levels that bring to mind the rage that accompanied the struggle against Mubarak. In retrospect it could be that among the Muslim Brotherhood there are those who feel that it was a mistake on their part to try to drive the rickety Egyptian cart, because there is no chance to come to any positive goal, and they – despite inheriting a very difficult situation form Mubarak and Tantawi – will be identified with the failure.

Syria – The Next Massacre

For 21 months, since March of 2011, observers of the events have the sense that the collapse of Asad is near, and with his collapse the state will be broken up into homogeneous units : Kurds in the northeast of the country, ‘Alawites in the west, Druze in the south, Bedouins in the East, Damascenes in the center and residents of Aleppo in the North. The idea that an autonomous ‘Alawite unit might be established comes from information that the regime is streaming heavy weapons, ammunition and heavy equipment into the area of the mountains of Ansariyya in the West of the country, the traditional dwelling place of the ‘Alawites, so that they will be able to defend themselves against the Muslims’ attack on the mountain and its inhabitants.

In recent days, information has begun to surface that units belonging to the Free Syrian Army are attacking the mountains of Ansariyya, and that tens of ‘Alawite villages have been abandoned out of fear of Muslim knives that are filled with hatred for the ‘Alawites and because of the Muslims’ strong desire to avenge upon them the deeds of slaughter that the regime has carried out against the citizens of Syria for the past two years, and also in previous periods, such as the period between 1976 and 1982, when the Muslim Brotherhood first arose, that ended in the slaughter of thousands of men, women and children in the city of Hama in February of 1982.

If this information is indeed correct, and Asad’s opposition is indeed taking control of Ansariyya, this might be the physical end of the ‘Alawaites and the end of their dream to control even themselves. The blood that will be spilled when the Muslims slaughter them will be much more than was spilled until today, and it is not clear how much the world will feel compelled to help this group when push comes to shove, and knives are at their throats.

What does this say about the future of Syria? It seems that Syria is sinking in a swamp of blood, fire and tears, as it is torn into pieces by hundreds of militias, some of which have cultural and religious orientation identical to that of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. This development might be very problematic for Israel because neighbors like these do not bode well, and if heavy weapons or weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands, Israel might find itselfin the near future coping with threats that it is not used to.

Libya – Tribal Wars

In this country, stricken by tribalism, a coalition of tribes together with massiveNATO support succeeded to remove Qadhaffi, but since he was eliminated by his opposition more than a year ago, Libya has become an arena for battles between tribes over economic and governmental interestsand for territory and influence. Eastern tribal headquarters – Cyrenaica – are fighting against the tribes of the West – Tripolotania, and the southern tribes are enemies of all the others.

Libyan society is polarized also on an ethnic basis, around the Arab-Berber split that has economic and governmental implications as well. The prediction is that as long as Libya continues to be one state it will continue to be an arena for tribal struggles. Why? Because – that’s the natural situation between tribes, and especially those that live in the Sahara, who for hundreds of years and more, have developed strong and dangerous“’atsabiyya” (tribal rivalry) , mainly towards “the other” (anyone who is different from him). The fact that weapons are widespread in the Libyan desert means that the violence inherent to the culture of the region, is turning the matter into something particularly deadly.

Hypocrisy At its Worst

The upheaval in the Arab world is the result of a basically terrible situation created by the regimes, an atmosphere of enmity toward the regimes created by the al Jazeera channel and the huge fire that Muhammad bou Azizi ignited. During the past two years, the principality of Qatar has been, and still is involved up to its neck in funding the chaos and sending various types of support to Libya and Syria, and the al Jazeera channel, which is the operative agent, ignites the problem in Arab countries by calling for democracy, human rights and freedom of expression in these countries.

But Qatar itself cannot stand up to al Jazeera’s standards when it comes to democracy: in the beginning of this December, the Qatari court sent a 36-year old poet by the name of Muhammad ben al-Dhiabal-Ajami to prison for life, because while he praised the revolutions in the Arab world, he also criticized the Emir of Qatar. Al-Ajami went even further and called for revolution in Qatar, even though he knew that the punishment for this is death.

If the Emir of Qatar does not pardon al-Ajami, he will be inviting sharp criticism from anyone who has a mouth and a tongue in the Arab world, but he will pay no heed to the criticism and will continue to encourage the Muslim Brotherhood to take control of the rest of the countries of the Arab world, while shutting mouths in his own back yard.

A General Picture

Two years after the beginning of the upheaval in the Arab world, the picture does not arouse too much optimism. The rulers of still more countries are standing on shaky ground, and the wave may reach them too.

Israel again appears as an island of stability and sanity in a roiling and stormy sea, where rickety boats are about to sink along with their inhabitants. May Allah save the Arab peoples.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav with permission from the author.

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

The current public and media discourse in Israel is riddled with lies, adopted by the masses without a second thought.

One of those lies is
the concept of a political "bloc" made up of the political parties to
the left of Likud. Everyone knows that these leftist parties are all
vying for each other's voters. But this hasn't stopped supportive
commentators and the heads of those parties from referring to a
"Center-Left bloc." This term is wrong and misleading, but it continues
to star in the election process even as former Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert and Hatnuah Chairwoman Tzipi Livni — the architects of the
disengagement debacle — outflank Meretz on the Left, and cannot be
defined as centrist or draw votes away from Likud.

Another so-called
"bloc" is the European Union, whose membership numbers have only grown
since its establishment, with the collapse of the Soviet Union,
Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. More may even be on the way, with growing
pressure for Basque, Catalan and Scottish independence, as well as a
possible Belgian split into two separate states. Another process
threatening the "bloc" is the slow but steady conquest of some European
nations by Muslim immigrants.

But these processes
haven't prevented the European "bloc" — especially those members that
have shady colonialist histories — from condemning Israel over its plan
to expand construction in Jerusalem. In fact, these countries, some
motivated by anti-Semitic sentiments and others by defeatist ones, stand
steadfastly by the Holocaust denier from Ramallah, Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. In other words, they support the
"good" terrorists from the Palestine Liberation Organization — all of
Palestine.

It is no wonder, then,
that precisely on the day that the European "bloc" was so perturbed by
Israel's construction plans and efforts to protect itself from the Arab
occupier — the Arabs are the true occupiers in the land of Israel — the
hypocritical Europeans were awarded the Nobel Prize for ... peace. The
same prize that has lost all meaning ever since it was awarded to the
biggest of archterrorists, Yasser Arafat.

But who are we to
complain about the Europeans misreading reality in such an egregious
way, thinking that Israel is an occupying force in its own land and
pushing for the foolishness that is the two-state solution? How can we
fault the Europeans for distinguishing between "good" and "bad"
terrorists and for preventing Israel from going after either kind when
our very own leftist "bloc" keeps making the exact same statements and
spreading the same lies?

We are talking about
President Shimon Peres, the man who brought the bottle of Oslo poison to
Israel, who is now warning against the perils of Hamas but still
encouraging Israelis to drink the poison he brought. We are talking
about Tzipi Livni, who established her own personal movement (with her
party, Hatnuah, “The Movement”), which is supposed to be based on the
diplomatic "experience" of the woman who afflicted Israel with the
Oslopolis (Oslo and Annapolis) process and whose every diplomatic move
has been based on appeasing those who exert pressure on Israel from
within and without. That was her plan for combating diplomatic
isolation. In reality, however, she left nothing but scorched earth
behind her in Israeli foreign policy.

In this reality that
has been created, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no choice but to
smash the lie linking a Palestinian state with peace once and for all.
These two things are direct opposites, and anyone who supports the
establishment of an Arab state west of the Jordan River — whether he or
she is an Israeli, an Arab, a European or an American — is only pushing
peace further away. As long as Netanyahu continues to recite the
two-state solution foolishness, he makes himself complicit in the "bloc"
mentality and the above-listed lies.

Dr. Ron Breiman served as chairman of Professors for a Strong Israel from 2001 to 2005.

In
the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of
defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school,
the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to
prevent such a massacre.

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the
University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study
of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977
and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and
death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed
right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and
background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties
for committing a crime with a gun.

None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage
from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at
reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is
working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings
was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate
generally.

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state
only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal
planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in
the entire area might have a gun.

You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in
“gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws:
public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater
where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall
where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.

If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to
you, that’s because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping
mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was
given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two
people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that
the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at
the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted
mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because
there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

In a nonsense “study” going around the Internet right now, Mother
Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public
shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: “In not a single case was
the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”

This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases
where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public
shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where
the shooter wasn’t stopped.

If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass
shootings, shouldn’t we pay particular attention to the cases where the
aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple
rounds?

It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones’ methodology:

– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel
Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the
nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns
blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the
attack. Total dead: Zero.

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean
and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more
ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third
to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as
well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to
be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the
shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people
at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant
principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it
at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance
being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and
stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people
getting killed — and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones
study.

If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by
reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause,
only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On
the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding,
and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold
blood, try the other policies. Ann CoulterSource: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ann-coulter/we-know-how-to-stop-school-shootings/Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Instead of seeking way to solve
the financial crisis, Fayyad chose to call on Palestinians to boycott
all Israeli goods. He is hoping that by calling for an economic
intifada, he will succeed in diverting the anger and frustration on the
Palestinian street outward to Israel. This has always been the
Palestinian Authority's way of avoiding responsibility for anything that
goes wrong — by putting all the blame on Israel.

Salam Fayyad, the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, this week called for an economic intifada against Israel.

Fayyad, whose government is facing a severe financial crisis, wants
Palestinians to boycott all Israeli goods in response to Israel's
decision to seize tax revenues belonging to the Palestinian Authority.

The revenues were seized and transferred to the Israel Electric Company to cover Palestinians' debts to the firm.

Fayyad is angry because the Israel Electric Company finally collected
its debts from Palestinian consumers. Speaking to Palestinian reporters
in Ramallah, he denounced the transfer of the funds to the company as
"illegal and immoral."

Fayyad knows better than anyone else that, for various reasons, many Palestinians have not been paying their electricity bills.

Many Palestinians refuse to pay water, electricity and other bills
because they believe the international community, primarily the
Americans and Europeans, should be covering all their expenses. Others
refuse to pay because they believe the money eventually falls into the
hands of corrupt Palestinian Authority officials.

Earlier this year, the Palestinian Authority announced a series of
measures to persuade Palestinian consumers to pay their electricity
bills, but to no avail. The Palestinian Authority even announced a new
law that allows it to imprison any Palestinian who is caught practicing
the widespread phenomenon of "electricity theft."

Because of the financial crisis, Fayyad's government has also failed
to pay full salaries to its employees, sparking a two-day general strike
of the public sector in the West Bank.The transfer of funds to the Israel Electric Company, and the Arab
world's failure to fulfill promises to support the Palestinian Authority
financially, have created a severe financial crisis in the Palestinian
Authority.

This is not the first time that Arab countries lie to Palestinians.
Over the past two decades, Arab nations have promised the Palestinians
billions of dollars in aid. But, according to officials in Ramallah, the
Palestinians have received less than 10% of what they had been
promised.

Instead of seeking ways to solve the crisis, however, Fayyad chose to
call on Palestinians to boycott all Israeli goods. How does that help
solve the financial crisis? Fayyad did not have an answer. He just wants
to punish Israel for collecting on the debt for the electricity bills.

He is hoping that by calling for an economic intifada, he will
succeed in diverting growing anger and frustration on the Palestinian
street towards the Israelis. This has always been the Palestinian
Authority's way of avoiding responsibility for anything that goes wrong
-- by putting all the blame on Israel.

Fayyad wants Palestinians to boycott Israel, but at the same time is
unable to provide them with better alternatives. Does he really think
that Palestinians will stop buying Israeli-manufactured medicine, for
example?

As one Palestinian public servant asked, "How can our prime minister
ask us to boycott Israeli goods when we can't even afford to purchase
Palestinian goods because he's not paying us our salaries?"

Added another Palestinian who has been working as a school teacher
for 25 years: "If Fayyad wants us to boycott Israel, why doesn't he
himself set an example? Why is he living in Jerusalem, under Israeli
rule, and enjoying, together with his family, most privileges offered to
Israeli citizens? Today, I'm ready to go and work in an Israeli
settlement to feed my children and I don't care whether Fayyad likes it
or not."Khaled Abu ToamehSource: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3508/economic-intifadaCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

In his article “The Revolt of Islam in Syria” (Jerusalem Post,
December 12), Jonathan Spyer — senior fellow at the GLORIA Center —
points out compelling information about the new Western-backed
leadership in Syria.

The bottom line: if this is Syria’s new government, then Syria now has an Islamist regime.This is happening with the knowledge and collaboration of the Obama
administration and a number of European governments. It is a
catastrophe, and one that’s taking place due to the deliberate decisions
of President Barack Obama and other Western leaders. Even if one
rationalizes the Islamist takeover in Egypt as due to internal events,
this one is U.S.-made.

As Spyer points out, U.S. and European policy can be summarized as follows:

To align with and strengthen Muslim
Brotherhood-associated elements, while painting Salafi forces as the
sole real Islamist danger. At the same time, secular forces are ignored
or brushed aside.

The new regime, recognized by the United States and most European
countries as the legitimate leadership of the Syrian people, is the
Syrian National Coalition, which has also established a military
council.

Spyer’s detailed evidence for these arguments — much of which comes
from raw wire service reports, for which praise is due to Reuters in
this case — is undeniable. And if we know about these things, there is
no doubt that the highest level of the U.S. government does as well.

Why is this happening? Because Obama and others believe that they can
moderate the Muslim Brotherhood and this will tame the Salafists,
despite massive evidence to the contrary. This is going to be the
biggest foreign policy blunder of the last century, and the cost for it
will be high. It should be stressed: such a strategy is totally
unnecessary; the alternatives have been ignored; and the real moderates
are being betrayed.

Here is some of the proof for these assertions:

– “The founder of the Free Syrian Army, former Syrian Air Force
Colonel Riad Asaad, is notably absent [from the leadership]. General
Mustafa al-Sheikh, the first of his rank to defect to the rebels, is
also not there. Sheikh is known for his fierce opposition to the Muslim
Brotherhood. Hussein Haj Ali, the highest ranking officer to defect so
far, was similarly absent.” These men are all anti-Islamists.

– “A Reuters report on the new joint military council calculated that
the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies account for about two-thirds of
the 263 men who met in Antalya and formed the new body. Salafi
commanders are also there.” In other words, the Islamists will get the
overwhelming share of weapons provided under U.S. sponsorship, Turkish
oversight, and Qatari and Saudi financing. And the United States has not
objected to the arming of Salafist super-extremists as long as they
aren’t affiliated to al-Qaeda.

– “The new council is headed by Brigadier Selim Idriss, who is
described as a non-ideological military man. But his deputies,
Abdel-basset Tawil of Idleb and Abdel-Qader Saleh of Aleppo governate
are associated with the Salafi trend.” In other words, there’s a
non-Islamist front man for what will be an Islamist-controlled army.

– “The domination by the Muslim Brotherhood of the new military
council mirrors the movement’s leading position in the new civilian
leadership body — the Syrian National Coalition. The leader of this
coalition is Ahmed Mouaz al-Khatib, former Imam of the Umayyad Mosque in
Damascus.“Khatib is closely associated with the Damascus Branch of the Muslim
Brotherhood. The leader of the new coalition has a long history of
anti-Semitic, anti-Western, and anti-Shia remarks. (He praised Saddam
Hussein, for example, for “terrifying the Jews” and wrote an article
asking if Facebook was an “American-Israeli intelligence website.”) He
is also an admirer of the Qatar-based Muslim Brotherhood preacher Sheikh
Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

– “Within the body headed by Khatib, the Muslim Brotherhood dominated
Syrian National Council controls around 27 of the 65 seats on the
executive body of the new coalition. There are also Islamists and fellow
travelers among the non-SNC delegates. The Brotherhood is by far the
best organized single body within the coalition. One secular delegate at
the first full meeting of the coalition accused the MB of `pushing more
of its hawks into the coalition, although it already has half of the
seats.’”Let me add two other points:

– The U.S. government backed the previous opposition “leadership,”
the Syrian National Council, which was formed as a result of American
initiative operating through Islamist Turkey. The fact that this council
had a Muslim Brotherhood majority in the leadership did not deter the
Obama administration from proclaiming it to be the address for support.
Only when the council had clearly failed — and despite the fact that
months earlier several moderates had resigned complaining about
Brotherhood domination — did the U.S. government change strategy to
organizing a new, yet also Muslim Brotherhood-dominated group.

– American intelligence agents in southern Turkey supervise the
handover of weapons to the rebels. They make no attempt to stop arms
from going to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists while they make
no attempt to funnel the guns to moderates. The only restriction is that
they not go to al-Qaeda-affiliated Salafists.

One day, those guns will be used to commit unspeakable atrocities
against Christians and other minority groups just as they will be used
to install an Islamist regime and to kill or intimidate its opponents.

How has the United States handled this threat?

Well, it declared one Salafi group off-limits, because it is linked to al-Qaeda. That’s it.As Spyer points out, there has been and still is an alternative: for
the West to back non-Islamist leaders, including liberals, Arab
nationalists, and Kurdish nationalist forces. Such a strategy was not
pursued either in Egypt or in Tunisia.

So when Syria gets an anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and anti-democratic
(aside from holding elections) regime, don’t be surprised. You can read
it in the surprised and grudging admissions of the Western mass media a
year or two after this regime takes power, or you can know about it
right now.

This outcome might have been inevitable anyway — but I don’t think
that’s true. A vigorous policy of supplying non- and anti-Islamist
forces while doing nothing to help the Brotherhood and Salafist
militias, plus the formation of a non-Islamist dominated political
grouping that would receive Western aid could have produced a very
different result.

But Western policy, and especially Obama administration policy, is
now putting into power yet another anti-Western regime that will oppress
its own people and put a high priority on trying to wipe out Israel.

This article was originally published on PJMedia.Barry RubinSource: http://www.gloria-center.org/2012/12/proof-of-a-scandal-u-s-policy-is-making-syria-into-an-anti-western-antisemitic-islamist-state/Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Today’s Washington Post editorial opposing
the nomination of Chuck Hagel as defense secretary should provide
encouragement for those seeking to derail the appointment. The Post
rightly pointed out that Hagel’s positions on defense spending and
stopping Iran’s nuclear program “fall well to the left of those pursued
by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of
the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.” The Post is
right about that, but that is exactly why the talk about Hagel is
raising alarms among those who fear that a second Obama administration
will not follow through on the promises made by the president during his
first term, with specific attention to his pledge to stop Iran from
developing a nuclear capability.

However, those expecting that pro-Israel Jewish Democrats will be
leading the charge to stop the appointment of a man who is a prominent
critic of the Jewish state as well as of its American supporters are
probably going to be disappointed. As this article published today in the Hill
demonstrates, the unwillingness of influential Democrats like Dianne
Feinstein and Carl Levin to oppose Hagel shows that any campaign against
the nomination may be an uphill slog. Combined with the natural
reluctance of many senators to oppose a former colleague and friend, the
inability of Hagel’s foes to get prominent Jewish Democrats to take a
stand may ensure his victory.

Though the headline in the Hill spoke of Jewish Democrats
being “divided” on Hagel, the only senator they quoted as opposing him
was Joe Lieberman, who is an independent and is leaving the Senate this
month anyway. While Ben Cardin and Richard Blumenthal took no position,
their silence as well as the no-show attitude of the National Jewish
Democratic Council has turned the debate into one between Jewish
conservatives like the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol and the Republican Jewish Coalition and supporters of Hagel like Peter Beinart, Joe Klein and J Street.

Of course, the reason why Klein and Beinart are so enthusiastic about
Hagel illustrates why the pro-Israel community is so upset about the
prospect of his running the Pentagon. His antagonism to Israel has never
been a secret and the left hopes he will fulfill their fantasies about a
second Obama administration putting the screws to Israel about the
Palestinians. They also like his lack of interest in taking on Iran or
even threatening the use of force to bring Tehran to its senses about
its drive for nuclear weapons. Open supporters of Iran such as the Campaign against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran feel the same way.

While Klein has written
about AIPAC beginning to use its muscle to stop Hagel, any such effort
will require Democrats to put up or shut up about their party and
president being stalwart supporters of the Jewish state. Simply put, a
Hagel nomination is incompatible with any idea that this administration
or the Democratic Party can be viewed as reliable allies of Israel. It
will be up to people like Cardin and Blumenthal and the NJDC to speak up
about Hagel in the coming weeks for that pledge to have any real
meaning.Jonathan S. TobinSource: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/12/19/jewish-democrats-fail-to-speak-up-on-chuckhagel/Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Since the terrorist attack in Benghazi killed our ambassador there and three others, I’ve beenasking
just how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has managed to avoid
accountability for what was clearly her State Department’s failure.
Others have begun asking that same question, including former Clinton
administration official Aaron David Miller. Miller offered
a few possible answers, one of which was that her expected run for the
presidency in 2016–which is already in motion–has convinced the
Washington establishment to stay on her good side.

Miller was asking the question in the context of the strangely
effusive praise she has been receiving for her work as secretary of
state, even though she has been surely unremarkable–and that was before
the debacle in Benghazi (and, I would add, Foggy Bottom’s failure with
regard to the Palestinians’ unilateral declaration of statehood at the
UN). It’s possible that Miller is right–that most people don’t actually
believe what they’re saying about Clinton, but are simply speaking
flattery to power. But yesterday’s release of the inquiry
into Benghazi should inspire at least some honesty about Clinton’s
manifest failure there. It also explains why Republicans have latched on
to Benghazi with such force: as the report shows, the tragedy in
Benghazi was evidence of the failure of the Obama administration’s
approach to foreign policy across the administration.

As the report makes clear, there is a serious management problem at the State Department:

Communication, cooperation, and coordination among Washington,
Tripoli, and Benghazi functioned collegially at the working-level but
were constrained by a lack of transparency, responsiveness, and
leadership at the senior levels. Among various Department bureaus and
personnel in the field, there appeared to be very real confusion over
who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based
on both policy and security considerations.

The report also knocks the State Department for not responding
appropriately to requests for more security in Libya, and for needing
those requests in the first place. The report wonders why the State
Department’s decision makers didn’t understand the situation on the
ground, and goes on to name 20 separate instances of violence or
attempted violence against foreign missions and NGOs in the six months
leading up to the attack on the American mission in Benghazi.

So Clinton was detached and ill-informed about the mission to an
inexcusable degree. But President Obama himself shares some of the
blame. After all, as the report notes, Libya was in a state of
lawlessness for a reason:

It is worth noting that the events above took place against a general
backdrop of political violence, assassinations targeting former regime
officials, lawlessness, and an overarching absence of central government
authority in eastern Libya. While the June 6 IED at the SMC and the May
ICRC attack were claimed by the same group, none of the remaining
attacks were viewed in Tripoli and Benghazi as linked or having common
perpetrators, which were not viewed as linked or having common
perpetrators. This also tempered reactions in Washington. Furthermore,
the Board believes that the longer a post is exposed to continuing high
levels of violence the more it comes to consider security incidents
which might otherwise provoke a reaction as normal, thus raising the
threshold for an incident to cause a reassessment of risk and mission
continuation. This was true for both people on the ground serving in
Libya and in Washington.

Behold the product of “leading from behind,” the Obama
administration’s light-touch approach to foreign intervention. The Libya
mission left a decapitated country in the midst of civil war descending
into anarchy ruled by gang-led violence. The Obama administration chose
to wash its hands of the ordeal when Muammar Gaddafi was gone. It was
into this chaos that Clinton sent our ambassador with insufficient
protection.

The report also finds fault with the intelligence establishment,
though former CIA Director David Petraeus has already resigned and thus
won’t be held doubly responsible for what happened. Max has also noted the confused and clumsy military response to the attack as well.

The harsh Republican response to Benghazi, then, was not just about
Susan Rice and her talking points (though that was an issue for them as
well, certainly), but about the broader strategic and management
failures across all relevant departments of the Obama administration,
and the pitfalls of the “leading from behind” strategy of military
engagement.Seth MandelSource: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/12/19/benghazi-report-makes-clear-clintons-failure-and-obamas/Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The IAF concludes 2012, states that there is concern of the use of UAVs for terrorism purposes. IAF Commander Eshel refused to comment regarding the row of explosions in Hezbollah's warehouses, only saying that "it's dangerous to sleep with rockets"

Major General Amir Eshel, IAF Commander (Photo: IDF Spokesperson)

The Israeli Air Force concluded the year 2012, and stated that the greatest concern is of increased attempts by Hezbollah to attain accomplishments by inserting unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) into Israeli territory. According to the IAF, Hezbollah is encouraged by the successful entry of its UAV into Israeli territory during the past October, and senior IAF officers said that up to 50 kilograms of explosives can be loaded onto a UAV which would serve as a precise rocket.
IAF Commander Major General Amir Eshel refused to say whether the IDF or the air force were connected to the series of explosions in Hezbollah's weapon warehouses which occurred recently, and said that "it's dangerous to sleep with rockets at home - whatever happens, happens.”
Eshel also discussed the accomplishments of operation Pillar of Defense last month in the Gaza Strip. “The operation achieved accomplishments that are being studied throughout the region. This is a red light or a warning to anyone that attempts to operate,” Eshel said. “However, we must not rest on our laurels.”
He added that “The IAF will be put to much more difficult tests than what was presented in Pillar of Defense. The enemy will utilize more force, and we will use more force.” With regards to the issue of whether or not deterrence was attained at the end of the operation, Eshel said that "deterrence is a difficult term to classify. Deterrence can be examined in retrospect, and it is difficult to examine it while looking onwards. According to senior officers, it is possible to win and beat the other side considerably, but there will be no white flag, and the last rocket fire will be theirs.
As to the Iranian challenge, a senior IAF officer said that "We are responsible for ensuring that the saying "all the options are on the table" has validity, and we have very good capabilities with regards to Iran."
Eshel also referred to the issue of the deteriorating standing of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "Syria's process of disintegration is an existing fact. It’s in our back yard. There are stockpiles of advanced weapons there, including unconventional capabilities. I don’t know what will be on the day after. Beyond the questions, we have as key role to play and it is to deal with the unconventional weapons. This is an issue for Israel, one that stands before the decision-makers, and it is a very complex issue.”

Or HellerSource:http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=483&ArticleID=1844Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

by IPT NewsIran's Press TV scored an international scoop Tuesday. It turns out, it reports, the massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six of their teachers and administrators was not the work of a troubled loner. Rather, it was Israeli death squads exacting vengeance over a recent United Nations General Assembly vote granting Palestine nonmember observer status.

In a time of national grieving unmatched since the 9/11 attacks, the
Iranian government's English-language news outlet used the opportunity
to promote vile anti-Semitic conspiracies so extreme that not even the
most strident Islamists have offered anything close to them.

The claim came from Michael Harris, who was one of three panelists in
a discussion about the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Conn. While the other panelists focused on a culture of
violence in America, or the issue of gun laws, Harris unleashed a
torrent of Jew hatred."Hollywood is Jewish owned and Jewish controlled and they spew filth
and they spew violence out," he said. Jews are the ones pushing for gun
control. Jews control Congress.

"And now here we go, here's a revenge killing in the U.S., sponsored
by Israel, that killed all these innocent children," Harris said. "And
that is something that Israelis do very, very well. They target the
innocent, they target children, they target women and they avoid the
issue. Because they're angry they didn't get their way and now Palestine
has standing in the U.N. and Israel is going to be subject to the
International Criminal Court and their leadership is going to be taken
to task. So let's connect the dots here about what's going on globally,
geo-politically with Israel involved."

While the other two guests dismissed Harris' theories, saying Israel
had nothing to do with Newtown and tried to steer the conversation back
to the brutal killing, the Press TV hostess never pushed back. A video of the segment shows Harris spoke longer than the others during the 25-minute segment and was given the last word.

The United States considers Iran the world's leading state-sponsor
of international terrorism. But that fact hasn't stopped American
Islamists, led by officials from the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) from repeatedly appearing on Press TV programs to bash
American policy or culture. It might be different if they tried to speak
truth to power, criticizing Iran for its terror support or repression
of its own people.

But instead, they have blamed America for Muslim riots over the Internet video mocking Mohammed last fall. They have cast America as being at war with Islam, a message considered to be one of the most potent tools
in recruiting Muslims to violent jihad, and likened America's treatment
of Muslims to the way Jews were treated in Nazi Germany. Examples go on and on.

Press TV followed up the Newtown panel discussion by publishing a story
on Harris' theory on its website. "Israeli death squads involved in
Sandy Hook bloodbath: Intelligence analyst," the headline blares. It
describes Harris as "a former Republican candidate for governor of
Arizona and GOP campaign finance chairman."

The Press TV article asserts Israel staged the attack "to teach
America a lesson, knowing that America would take the punishment, keep
'quiet,' and let a 'fall guy' take the blame."

If the publishing of cartoons and Internet videos depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad can spark riots and killings throughout the world, what does a blood libel like the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory do to Muslim attitudes toward Jews?

Blaming Zionists and blaming Jews for problems large and small is a reflex action in parts of the Middle East, including claims Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks. Hamas instills it in young children. Islamists in Egypt blamed Jews for a New Year's Eve 2011 bombing at a Coptic church that killed 21 people, a message echoed by Press TV.

The article on the Newtown shooting was written by Gordon Duff, identified as "a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today." Harris also writes for Veterans Today, including articles defending David Duke as "a shining example of western freedom and democracy."

Another article details his suspicions
that Jews, what he calls "organized jewery" was behind Jared Loughner's
shooting attack in Tucson that wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and
killed six people, including U.S. District Judge John Roll.

"My point here is: will organized jewery, the Neo-Pharisees that
comprise the unelected criminal shadow government sacrifice an asset
like Congresswoman Giffords to advance their bigger agenda?? You bet
they will. The criminals who took down the WTC and the Murrah Building
in Oklahoma, will eagerly sacrifice a pawn to pass stricter gun control
measures and dis-arm the US population. The armed US population is the
biggest obstacle that still exists for the shadow government of the
Neo-Pharisees to fully implement a totalitarian state here in the USA,
just like they destroyed Czarist Russia and created the Soviet Union,
they work day and night to impose that same hell on the citizens of the
USA."

Press TV officials should have been aware of Harris' views before
they invited him on the air and let him unleash his empty conspiracy
theories and hate rhetoric.

Duff's Press TV article says Harris points to "the flood of
inconsistencies in the 'cover story.'" But those amount to a series of
unanswered questions about alleged accomplices and unsourced claims that
police gunned down the shooter, Adam Lanza, after he tried to
surrender.

"After Harris' broadcast, key members of the military and law
enforcement community contacted Veterans Today in full support of
Harris' analysis," Duff writes.

"One three star general is quoted as saying, 'Harris hit the nail right on the head and it is about time someone spoke up.'"

What other proof is needed? In the broadcast interview, Harris
predicted a grand cover-up by Congress, which he said is owned by
Zionists. The absence of proof, therefore, is his proof."So any truth of this, if there's going to be, is going to be hidden
because Israel wants it hidden because they are once again the guilty
party," Harris said. "You have to realize, Israel has been operating
death squads in the United States now since Gabby Giffords and Judge
Roll were shot in Tucson. There's been other incidences. The Aurora,
Colorado shooting that was, again, Israeli death squads operating in the
U.S."

Fellow panelist Raynard Jackson,
a Washington-based political consultant, called Harris' comments
"irresponsible." A third panelist, Don Debar, said that the United
States is the "pre-eminent imperial power in the history of the planet."
As such, it controls Israel "although there is some backwash in the
Congress and other places."

Given the last word, Harris went off on another rant, condemning
American drone strikes abroad, which, "again," he said, "it goes back to
Israeli influence in U.S. foreign policy." If he had not done so in the
previous 20 minutes, he made it clear that he and Iran are on the same page.

"And I am very much anti Israel. I want Israel off the face of the
earth. They are the source of all problems in the Middle East. They are
the original terrorists. And do not forget that this killing in Newton
(sic) was a revenge killing because Israel lost the vote about Palestine
being recognized in the U.N. That's all it's about. It happens every
time. It's Israelis acting out, throwing a fit in extracting revenge
upon the United States.

"That's exactly what it is. And I'm tired of the kid gloves with Israel. It's time to go bare knuckles with them. Let's go."

The Newtown massacre united the country in grief. Press TV allowed
Harris to use the tragedy to sow hatred and nonsense. If not for the
horrible nature of the subject, it might have been taken as performance
art, mocking the crazed and illogical nature of bigotry. Instead, it's a
clear definition of what Press TV seeks to accomplish. American
Islamists, and those who work with them, should consider this the next
time Press TV calls.IPT NewsSource: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3859/press-tv-obscene-anti-semitismCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Many ask me if there is any way you will see a penny from this judgment (see below). Can you comment?

Reply from: Nitsana Darshan-Leitner

We have a great number of leads on Syrian government assets we are hoping to put into action.

In addition, if the US is recognizing the Syrian opposition (whoever that is) and Assad might fall and the State Dept. is going to be seeking to de-list Syria as an outlaw regime that supports terror then we, and the small group of other Syrian judgment holders, will try to insist that the new regime be compelled to pay off the judgment debts of the previous regime as Libya was forced to do.

We sincerely believe that Syrian judgment holders will see at least their compensatory damages.

Washington, DC, December 17, 2012: A Tel-Aviv based law center has represented two families of American citizens in their successful $338 million lawsuit against the government of Syria. The decision, handed down today in the United States district court for Washington D.C., found that the government of Syria was responsible for providing material support and resources to the Kurdish Workers Party ("PKK"), a terrorist organization designated by the United States State Department.

Chief District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Syria was vicariously liable for the PKK's 1991 kidnapping of a group of American biblical archeologists leading an excavation in Turkey. The Americans, who were searching to discover the location of the remains of the biblical Noah's Ark, were held hostage for 21 days before they finally were able to escape.

The families were represented by attorneys Robert Tolchin of New York and Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Tel-Aviv. Darshan-Leitner is the director of the Shurat HaDin Law Center. The Court awarded the families $38 million dollars in compensatory damages and levied a $300 million punitive damages award against the Syrian government as well.

Marvin Wilson and the family of the deceased Ronald Wyatt brought the lawsuit against Syria alleging that Damascus had allowed the PKK to operate from Syrian territory, and provided financial support and training to the terrorist group. The civil action sought both compensation and punitive damages from Syria.

Marvin Wilson, one of the kidnapped Americans, stressed: "The news we received today of a successful ruling against Syria for their support of the PKK during the time of our 1991 kidnapping in Turkey was extremely exciting! After 12 years of anticipating that justice would be served, I hope this ruling will serve notice and be a deterrent to others that there is a penalty for complicity in taking American citizens as hostages. We truly appreciate the dedication and resolve given by the Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center in litigating our case.”

Mary Nell Lee, the wife of the late Ronald Wyatt, added: “I am so very grateful that the judge recognized the effects this kidnapping had on our families. Each of our lives was changed in ways that have continued until this day. My prayer is that all those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists, receive compensation such as we have been awarded. While it cannot erase the memories of the event, it can provide each person a sense of justice and closure. Hopefully, it will have an effect on the countries involved in supporting terrorist organizations and help them learn that they cannot get away with such horrendous behavior.”

In Sept. 1991, Wilson and Wyatt traveled to Turkey as part of an archeological project to excavate a site near Mount Ararat, where according to the Old Testament, Noah’s Ark is believed to have finally found land. Shortly after traveling near the Syrian border the Americans, along with others, were taken hostage by armed gunmen. For the next 21 days the captives were subjected to brutal treatment, forced 18 hour marches and repeatedly assaulted by their PKK captors. The terrorists made ransom demands to the Turkish and American governments.

In July 2001, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Syria pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act’s terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A in the U.S. district court in Washington D.C.

In today’s ruling, the Court wrote that: “the brutal character of the kidnapping in this case, the significant harm it caused both the hostage plaintiffs and their families, along with Syria’s demonstrated and well known policy to encourage terrorism all merit an award of punitive damages.”

According to Darshan-Leitner: “This is a groundbreaking ruling which finds that Syria was responsible for the crimes perpetrated by the PKK terror organization it sponsors. This ruling also points to an underlying fact: the free world will no longer stand idle while international crimes are committed and it will fight against those rogue regimes which support these heinous acts. Above all, the court found that this kidnapping was brutal and heinous, and involved threats of execution, torture, as well as marches through mountains and dense forests. It is therefore fitting that compensation should be in the millions not in the tens of thousands. These days Syria continues to commit crimes against those who oppose the regime, and Syria will pay.”

Tolchin added: “Although the events that gave rise to this judgment took place a number of years ago, it is remarkable how little things have changed. Syria is still playing a proxy game creating terror, instability and mayhem via the PKK and Hizbollah. Hopefully with this judgment Syria will come to realize that there are financial consequences for its actions, while at the same time bringing some measure of comfort to the Wyatt and Wilson families for their ordeal.”